dude, i have so many joint injuries it's actually funny because if i start rattling them off people are like "omg, wtf man"

suck part is that some of the deep tissue therapy i've been having done has been breaking up adhesions and 15 year old trigger points.

might sound like a good thing, but when your foot has no ligaments left in it and adhesions, scar tissue, and muscle knots are the only things holding it together (and have been holding it together for 10+ years) it's quite painful when the bones start shifting around. in the past 2 weeks my left foot has gotten 1/2" wider (from collapsed bones) and my pinkey toe moved forward 3/4".

Blake_T wrote:yes, there are a lot of new discs slated to be added, but due to past knee injuries i cannot throw when temperatures are below ~45 degrees.

i have tossed it around a few times and my initial impressions of it are something like range 1, hss -2 , lss +0.5, pwr 1

That's cool. Off the top of my head I wouldn't know entirely what the numbers mean. I tend to get more from looking at the chart as a whole and comparing between discs. Looking forward to your official analysis once the weather is better.
-Matt

ok I was looking at the chart, and theres something that has never sat well with me. Its the HSS of the wraith and QK, if someone reaches the rated "5" power requirement, neither of these discs are stable enough for a rating indicating 0 high speed turn. for referance other discs that are rated 0 hss is the starfire x, teebird, venom, teerex, pulse tsunami, and monster. I know alot of guys w/ decent good smooth form that will throw a wraith flat or w/ a touch of hyzer and get a natural turn, especially in Pro, CFR and even star plastic (the dx starts freaky stable). then the QK although they didnt last w/ brand new flight long, I remember them having a bit of high speed turn.
please dont take this as a swing at the chart, its by far the most comprehensive and complete chart out there.

Is it possible to add the best height of a hyzer to flat throw with a proper nose down angle for as straight a shot as possible thrown with proper technique? Is it possible to state an average offset to all of the old categories and best apex height and nose down angle for those who don't thow with correct technique in the JFC? Preferably for total newbs that do most things wrong and those that just muscle it hard without proper mechanics, timing, power focus and snap? That's me in the last category so far. Hopefully not long. My experience has been that by muscling HSS has been on the average around 1 to 1.5 too low for me. LSS around 0.5 to 1 higher from the one stated. Naturally understable discs and rollers have more variation in HSS than overstable pigs. That would also be a helpful disclaimer in the JFC.

What I find difficult to find an offset for is required power. In my case Orion with a power requirement of 4 fies as far as do many fivers. I have thrown too overstable discs because of not telegraphing my shots properly. With max low line drive distance of 100 meters in headwind in winter clothing with 150 g Sidewinder that got hit by the wind at the end of the flight with average around 85 meters in calm conditions for all weights and stabilities of discs. Summertime records are little over 100 m at 10 % success rate when I'm properly warmed up in calm conditions for various power requirement discs between 3 and 5. With discs released flat not nose down in low line drives from 2.5 meters to around 7 meters tops at the highest point of trajectory.

I don't look at the power requirement much. I throw 3s, 4s and 5s to the same average distance. Only good throws differ. And only by a couple of meters so the difference could come from other factors as well.

[quote="Blake_T"]it wouldn't be possible since most people don't throw with proper technique and nose angles vary greatly along what people are capable of at a given height.[/quote]

So scratch the poor technique idea but how about doing the same as with power requirement for people with "perfect" technique? Let's say at sea level to keep the variables down. I think that most people that throw at mountains and tour on lower fields know the difference already. Sea level is I assume known to the majority of the throwers.

Would it be possible to rate disc into 5 different required nose down angle and 5 different required height for the reached and already existing range final range classification?

Like Wraiths into more nose down requirement with less required height for golf D shots than a Leopard. For example.

I think that JFC is the best single easy to use and concentrated place to consult when trying to find a disc that you'd like to have. And have no way of checking it out for yourself. We have about half of the disc models available from local dealers compared to the US here in Finland. Several manufacturers aren't represented at all to my knowledge.

Since my country is very wooded we have lots of tight technical courses with tunnels and ceilings. For these kinds of courses required height descriptions would be helpful. I think that required nose down is fairly secondary concern since not everyone has small hands like me. At least experienced players with acces to the internet ought to find out sooner or later about suitable thin rimmed discs if they have small hands.

JFC has probably been more influential for me than the disc reviews here and on pdga forums put together. In my mind it is the prime source of information. Thinking back on when I was searching for discs that I thought I needed I got about 70 % certainty from JFC during the second round of purchasing discs. By then I had realized that my poor technique produced offsets to different ratings. So the first time the chart wasn't as descriptive as I had hoped but it still steered me right very well. I don't reckon I made more than one purchase that didn't fully satisfy me wrt the descriptions.

Now that I have learnt more about the discs and seen how I need to change my technique and seen how the overly overstable discs that I've thrown don't serve me well enough on about half the holes I play I've learned to check the generation(rim width and nose angle erquirement and sensitivity), required height and sensitivity to improper throwing technique. Which is what every novice needs.

A novice can ask more experienced palyers and read the reviews. It is just that the reviews aren't as conclusive, clear cut, accurate etc. than Blake is. I trust Blake much more than the general disc golfing crowd. The problem with advice from even experienced players is that they usually can't seem to remember consider all the things needed for a novice. Like that most novices don't know to ask for all the things that efect flight paths and can't take into account every possbile shot that they will need to negotiate different holes. The manufacturers aren't too dependable either even though Innova has improved a little.

So the usual advice boils down to a Roc and a Teebird(original model) in DX. Maybe a Buzzz if you ask a Discraft fan and a Wizard for Gateway fans. All fine and dandy for sho for somebody with basic skills. But for a person in the beginning of their hobby it might be too much to throw any of these. At worst people will reject the sport as too demanding with that kind of discs and 150 ft of D or less. Seen it happen once on the first and last day of a persons experience with disc golf. A shame she was pretty too and there aren't too many female players here in Finland either.

Maybe an asterisk or some other symbol would be appropriate for beginner friendly discs? I don't mean that a power requirement of 1 and not very overstable flight and heavy fade are the only qualities that define a beginner friendly disc.

Would it be possible to rate disc into 5 different required nose down angle and 5 different required height for the reached and already existing range final range classification?

no. you can do it if you want and share the results though

Maybe an asterisk or some other symbol would be appropriate for beginner friendly discs?

there's 2 kinds of beginner friendly discs.

1) a disc that will give success on the first day and hinder their development the more they play.
2) a disc that will teach someone how most discs fly but give less success on day 1, for greater success down the road.

I was looking at Joe's Flight Chart this morning and wondered if there was a way to visually present the data -- sort of like Marshall Street's Flight Guide, except JFC is more detailed. So... how to present data in four (yes, FOUR) dimensions? We have HSS, LSS, power requirement, and range.

[quote="Blake_T"][quote]Would it be possible to rate disc into 5 different required nose down angle and 5 different required height for the reached and already existing range final range classification? [/quote]

no. you can do it if you want and share the results though

Janne: I vote myself out of this for now at least because I've only thrown a little less than half of the discs featured on the JFC. The availability of the discs sucks here so that's another no no. The biggest problem is that I'd classify myself under the heading of an unreliable source. As you know from trying to learn snap... thread I'm an expert on throwing technically incorrectly like me. Not like anyone else. Perfect technique or not. Im representative of only a portion of throwers and have no clue how large a part. I'd be able to give only some sort of info. Plus not having trained nose down driving more than twice it would be preposterously stupid of me to try assigning values to discs until I got a lot of practice with different heights and nose down angles.

AMybe at a later point in development I maybe able to make a very incomplete list but to me it makes more sense to just review each disc in the review area. After all an incomplete list may not be that useful. Whatever happens my reviews won't be oming in in a hurry because there's a lot of work to bo done to achieve even relatively reliable data for the reviews.

I think that with a huge amount of throws this sort of data could be achieved. I'm not talkin brain surgery type of accuracy here though. For the sake of informativeness for people getting into the sport and learning about different discs for different throws and required levels of technique something like this wouldn't be bad info at all. I've heard from several people that there's a real push for disc golf to become a mainstream sport. My thinking is to keep the learning curve as low as possible but quick. Readily available complete info seems to be a good way to achieve this in my opinion. As an alternative to the readable and compact JFC.

Actually on the nose down part I think that only two categories would probably suffice for most people. Zero to little required nose down angle and significant need of nose down angle. This is so generic though that maybe a rule of thumb would be able cover this category. Putters, mids and some/all thin rimmed old school drivers fall into the little category and the rest into a lot of required nose down category. If there aren't any major exceptions then this sort of data wouldn't be needed in the tables. Just as a sidenote somewhere.

[quote]Maybe an asterisk or some other symbol would be appropriate for beginner friendly discs? [/quote]

there's 2 kinds of beginner friendly discs.

1) a disc that will give success on the first day and hinder their development the more they play.
2) a disc that will teach someone how most discs fly but give less success on day 1, for greater success down the road.

i push 2. most people want 1.[/quote]

Janne: I am in between here but closer to your thinking. For the first times of playing I understand the need of getting people hooked. Making things as easy and enjoyable for the first times of playing helps. I don't think that buying two discs in the beginning of the hobby is a bad thing. As long as at least one of them is of type 2 for growing skills beyond what type 1 allows. And the type 2s get used more as time goes by. On most courses there are places where it is easier to throw with a disc that you're not as accustomed to throw. If it makes throwing more accurate for the type of shot you're trying to accomplish it is beneficial in the long run to throw withmore than one disc IMO.

At some point of the learning curve it is good to try to also learn the differences discs have and how to utilize them to your advantage. Naturally this should be secondary to learning to throw a wide array of shots for being able to negotiate every kind of situation.

There just might be enough room in the JFC for inputting data to the names of the discs field or somewhere else about which type of beginner friendliness a disc belongs to. Unfortunately the textual explanations of what either category means would probably make the chart larger. On the other hand at some point in time the number of new discs will eventually lengthen the chart anyway.

Adamschneider might be onto something here in his post after Blakes post. I haven't cross checked the Marshall street guide to JFC and my results extensively enough yet so I can't really say for sure how accurate they are for players of less than stellar skills such as I. I've heard that Marshall Street's data is good for the average Joe though. I'll have to dig into this and the work of Adam after some ZZZs.

No not BuZZZes and Zs as in revolutions multiplied by 3

Adding more dimensions for required height for max D on a golf line and nose angle requirements is probably gonna be messy to display. Even if discs were grouped into similar discs with limited amounts of discs per view. So for the sake of not exploding the heads of the readers too much information might only be harmful. More data is likely to serve the needs of intermediate and advanced players. And with more experience the need for such tables decreases. Conflicting needs indeed.

Blake_T wrote:seems like a really good idea if each range had it's own breakdown like that so that it wasn't too clustered.

The good news is that the latest versions of Google Earth do this thing where, if you have multiple overlapping placemarks, they "explode" when you click on them, allowing you to choose which point you really meant. (For example, Orion LS, Flash, and Inferno all occupy the same point in "space.")